Madoff Trustee Begins Seventh Pro Rata Interim Distribution of Recovered Funds to Madoff Claim Holders
New York, June 30, 2016 – Irving H. Picard, Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), commenced the seventh pro rata interim distribution from the customer fund to eligible BLMIS customers on June 30, 2016.
The SIPA Trustee is distributing approximately $190.247 million on a pro rata basis to BLMIS account holders with allowed claims, bringing the aggregate amount distributed to eligible claimants to approximately $9.47 billion, which includes approximately $836.6 million in committed advances from the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). The seventh distribution represents 1.305 percent of each claim dollar and will be paid on claims relating to 972 BLMIS accounts to record holders of allowed claims as of June 15, 2016. When combined with the prior six distributions, in aggregate, at least 58.369 percent of each customer’s allowed claim amount will be paid, unless that claim has been fully satisfied.
Currently, the SIPA Trustee has allowed 2,597 claims related to 2,249 BLMIS accounts. Of these, 1,296 accounts will now be fully satisfied following the seventh interim distribution. All allowed claims totaling $1,200,024.90 or less will be fully satisfied after the distribution.
To date, the SIPA Trustee has recovered or reached agreements to recover approximately $11.168 billion since his appointment in December 2008.
A. Bongiorno, Ex-Madoff Employee, to Assist Trustee in Locating Stolen Funds in the Madoff Ponzi Scheme
New York, August 28, 2016 – Annette Bongiorno, a former Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities…Read More
JPMorgan Wins Dismissal of Madoff Investors’ U.S. Lawsuit
New York, May 18, 2016 – In a class action suit brought by Richard Friedman…Read More
Award of Property Sale Proceeds Under the Divorce Decree is not Avoidable Because There Was No Transfer of Interest of the Debtor’s Property
West v. Christensen (In re Christensen), Nos. 11-30743, 13-02248, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 3921 (U.S. Bankr….Read More
Payments May be Ordinary, Even When the Payment Practices Differ in the Preference and Base Period, If there Is a Change in the Defendant’s Ownership
Satija v. C-T Plaster, Inc. (In re Sterry Indus.), Nos. 13-11818-TMD, 15-01108-TMD, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS…Read More
A Debtor’s Prepetition Transfer of a Farm was Fraudulent Because No Reasonably Equivalent Value was Received in Return
Zeddun v. Griswold (In re Wierzbicki), No. 16-1334, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13688 (7th Cir….Read More